Understanding men

[cailindana]

I've had some interesting conversations with DH lately (who has recently got into feminism in a big way) about how patriarchy has affected him. It's something I'm interested in as I think it's part of the bigger picture and worth knowing in terms of combatting the effects of how our society is structured, both on women and men. As a woman of course I have limited insight into how men see the world and so would appreciate views specifically from men.

What DH has said to me is that he has been trained by his upbringing to overvalue what men do and undervalue what women do.
He says he has found it extremely hard to be in any way honest about his feelings as he has learned that it is not acceptable for him to share how he really feels.

Both of these things have contributed in large ways to the problems in our relationship and now that he's recognised them and tried to overcome them things have changed. I have to admit though I am a bit discombobulated by the change almost as though he doesn't quite fit my expectation of how men should be (indoctrinated in me by my sexist asshat of a father). So I've also had to change my attitude.

Any thoughts?

There are statues out there celebrating most aspects of womanhood - if you can be bothered to Google them....

Single Mum Statue

Is that in birmingham

And who can forget -

Bugger - too soon -

Yes, it's in Birmingham.

That's a great statue IKnow, thanks for pointing it out :)

Snide remarks are a sign of someone who feels they're losing an argument and need to take a cheap shot Buffy. King does it a lot, but actually engages much of the time too. If you ignore the cheap shots he moves on eventually.

I really can't argue with the war vs birth thing. We blokes do love a good dust-up, in theory. Conquest, slaughter, heroism, sacrifice - all bloody marvellous. Until you read Siegfried Sassoon or Wilfred Owen, and recognise the horror.

But countries have always needed armies. I say 'need' - it might be fear, or greed, or mistrust, or scarcity of resources that drives the need. But war has always been with us. And if you want an army, you glamourise it to the hilt. Hence the statues, the memorials, the ceremonies and solemnity. You don't need all that to attract bin-men or shop-keepers, because they don't tend to get gassed, killed and maimed.

Also, I'd say we only value these men as long as they are up to the task. Look at how ex-servicemen have been treated by governments. It is, by and large, appalling. The UK government has fobbed off the Gurkhas for years. We now have to have private charities like Help for Heroes raising money and providing services for problems that the government created. Society has long had a mistrust of men who were sent out as cannon fodder, only to return damaged but not dead.

I don't disagree with you there Yops. And I think that's a good example of how patriarchy fucks men over good and proper.

I'm a bit confused by the statues thing.
A statue of every woman who gave birth would be an awful lot of statues.
A statue of every soldier who died in a war would be an awful lot of statues.
Except there isn't, only the "important" ones and the odd "unknown soldier" ones.
Perhaps it's because childbirth, as important as it is, is very common and "everyday" (although not for the individual involved of course) whereas major wars are infrequent and pretty momentous events affecting millions of people not just one.

I was just saying you were pointing out the obvious. Putting "hmmm?" At the end of an obvious point was a bit daft. Don't get upset, maybe have a time out. John lennon's song imagine, was the reference

"Whereas major wars are infrequent and pretty momentous events affecting millions of people not just one"

Eh birth affects absolutely everyone in the entire world, given that you can't actually be here without being born.

Of course I'm not advocating a statue for every woman MrNosey, though I think you know that. My point was commemoration, same a we commemorate soldiers with things such as the tomb of the unknown soldier. And anyway it's not the practical thing I'm talking about it's the principle of the thing - the fact that we do commemorate death and killing but not life-giving. It says a lot about our values I think.

As a slight aside, I've always found it... interesting that our national memorial to the contribution of women in war (and only WW2 at that) doesn't actually depict any women. Just the clothes they wore when they were deemed to be useful.

That memorial is horrible I hate it.

It's been vandalised recently by the way.

Buffy I was talking about the British soldiers. At that point you couldn't go back and rewrite history. Unless you have a time machine and they weren't about until the 70's.
Obviously it's a reaction to violence. It's better if there wasn't a war in first place. Lol you are funny

You'd need a lot of celebrations to celebrate life though

"Eh birth affects absolutely everyone in the entire world, given that you can't actually be here without being born."

Yes, my birth affected me, I wouldn't be here without it, but your birth didn't affect me at all.
Whereas WWII, the War of the Roses, etc. would have affected everyone living in this country simultaneously, although some more than others.
I agree with your principle. I'd certainly rather celebrate life than death.
But again, births happen every day. Wars do not.
So it could be that births are not celebrated because it's women risking their lives, or because it's so commonplace.

You could ask whether our attitude to pregnancy and childbirth would be different if men did it.

You could ask whether our attitude to pregnancy and childbirth would be different if men did it.

Or if it's different in different societies or time periods.
Somebody mentioned fertility gods earlier.
Any societies where mothers are more valued than ours?

Buffy, i do understand it. You were making an obvious and well trodden point and taking my point out of context. You started your 'imagine' point and put hmmm? At the end like you were some forward thinker, it was funny.

You could ask whether our attitude to pregnancy and childbirth would be different if men did it.

Well as far as I see it women are in the position they're in because they're the ones who go through pregnancy and childbirth. So if men did it then they would be the oppressed class IMO. But if you ask whether you think attitudes towards it would be different if men retained their current status but took on childbirth I think yes, attitudes would be entirely different. Pregnancy would be seen as a great sacrifice, a massive manly undertaking that must be respected. All accommodations would be made to ensure men aren't inconvenienced by it. The working world would look entirely different as it would be built around the people who bear children rather than the people who don't.